As Hillaryland hustles to reframe her image and the stories behind it, she’ll be on the opposition’s radar and on their war room walls. Let’s see…if Hillary Screens the unions on Labor Day we’ll run Mirrors on her soft immigration stance. Some of this is welcome. After all, these are the things that make Hillary relevant and, if she’s smart, the targets she needs to fire on. So if they Mirror our Labor Day play, we’ll Label them job killers.

She’s ready, of course. Hillaryland has updated the rapid-response machine from Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. War Room 2.0 has its own website, which looks like The Drudge Report and moves information just as fast. In the weeks before a new biography is published, the Clinton campaign obtains the manuscript and runs Preempts to position potential bad news as old news.

But these are, at best, holding actions. Hillary Rodham Clinton must not only fend off the Baits and Mirrors that still derail her reprogramming effort, she must sit for new drawings, sketches and pictures that exhibit the new Hillary.

Ironically, Richard Nixon faced a similar situation in 1968. His bid to return to the White House after an eight-year absence was aided by the sorry sight of an unpopular incumbent, the Great Democrat LBJ, saddled with an unpopular war. Sound familiar? But despite Johnson’s own poor standing, Nixon fared no better. He was still seen by many as the shifty-eyed, shadowy, sweaty Tricky Dick. Republican adviser Ray Price counseled him to show the public an “unknown” side to jar “loose a lot of the old prejudices and preconceptions.” Though novel at the time, these were simple Recasts. Don't edit, Dick. Just say it from a different perspective.

Hillaryland has already appropriated that tactic, as we described in the previous post in this series. Price also wrote, “It’s not the man we have to change, but rather the received impression. And this impression often depends more on the medium and its use than it does on the candidate himself.” How true.

One of Nixon’s youngest advisers, a television talk-show producer named Roger Ailes, took the strategy to heart, reshaping Nixon through a series of televised town halls. The questions, questioners and moderator were carefully chosen, but the dialogue was unscripted and conversations flowed (as only Hillary might have it). Sure enough, the Nixon of this signature format was, as Ailes put it, “The man in the arena.” Maybe he wasn’t lovable, but he was the most ready to lead. The framing play worked.

What communications motif can Hillary rely on to combat conservative velociraptors the likes of Roger Ailes, who today is the president of FOX News Channel? Her own online conversations (Challenges) did not last very long. The contest to choose a campaign song yielded a winsome video, but it’s a one-shot gimmick (a Peacock) which had to end sooner or later. (Here’s our choice, not that it’s a finalist.) The candidate performs ably in debates, but those aren’t personal vehicles, ready to deploy whenever the campaign deems them useful.

We predict that Hillaryland will run yet another framing play, the Screen, turning to one-on-one interviews of its candidate by prominent male news media figures. She’ll demonstrate presidential competence by matching sound bites with such interlocutors as Brian Williams, Jon Stewart, Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann. Earning respect from these “men’s men” will induce reluctant Democrats and independents to give her a fresh look.

But it’s the third member of the Clinton nuclear family who will seal the deal on the new Hillary next year. We’ll explain how and why Chelsea is the campaign’s secret weapon in the final post in this series. Nixon’s “man in the arena” will have a new face.

Let's also not forget that in 1968 we did have another choice...a far greater choice, in Bobby Kennedy that was tragically taken away from us. Without his tragic assassination, Bobby Kennedy likely would have won the presidency that year.
If Hillary in 2008 is Nixon in 1968, then Obama is Bobby Kennedy. Barring another tragic assassination (God forbid), this time we can have the Bobby Kennedy of our time in Obama.
Imagine how much better our country and indeed the whole world would have been in 1968 if we had gotten Bobby Kennedy instead of Richard Nixon. It would have been a turning point in history, one that would have put us on a far better trajectory.
Well, this time we can indeed have it all and get Obama. Obama's the one!

Posted By: commenter | June 20, 2007 at 03:31 PM

Agreed with analysis and above comment. Perhaps the most relevant similarities between Nixon and Hillary right now are that (1) as with Nixon, few people doubt Hillary's skills to be a good President -- politically conniving, self interested, etc. -- but (2) again, as with Nixon, there are very few except for the deluded who can really say they like her. (As a bonus point, both, obviously, had their ethical lapses that they have had to publicly address while being in someone else's White House. This is starting to look ike those old charts of Kennedy/Lincoln coincidences.)

Posted By: El Mono | June 19, 2007 at 11:44 PM

Great analysis. The sad thing is that Nixon did indeed fool everyone and the country got a president it really couldn't feel that good about or unite behind. Of course we also got a president who flagrantly violated the law and gave this country a very dark time.
Hillary is more like Nixon than in just this attempt to recast her. Like Nixon, she is very controlling. Like Nixon, she is easily disposed to practice deception. Like Nixon she is practically paranoid in trying to shut down her opponents. Indeed, her War Room 2.0 is something that would put a smile on Nixon's face.
If elected, Hillary would again be like Nixon: she wouldn't unite the country but be very divisive, and could very well end up in a huge scandal like Nixon. Like Nixon, she wouldn't be a choice that America would feel very good about.